Court makes remarkable Apology to Malicious Mother who poisoned children against their Father

November 29, 2011 Reprinted courtesy of Fathers4Equality at www.f4.com.au/blog

 

The below article is about a disgraceful act by Australia’s Family Law Courts,  to completely destroy any shred of child protection provisions left in Australia’s Family Law act, by making an unprecedented apology to a malicious mother who has alienation her children against their father.
This is the Court, at its highest levels,  over-turning a sitting Magistrates decision and rewarding a Mother who has engaged in Parental Alienation to an extreme degree, for no apparent legally justified reason.
You have to seriously ask why the Family Law act was amended by the Gillard Labor government recently when the Judiciary has already interpreted out any provisions designed to promote a child’s meaningful relationship with both parents.

Chief Federal Magistrate John H. Pascoe is a fool and an unfit custodian of a child’s best interests for sinking so low as to apologise to such a malicious woman, all in the name of appeasing women’s groups. This is the kind of precedent that will encourage Parental Alienation as the standard tactic for getting sole custody of your children, especially if you are an unfit parent.
To all separating Australian Mothers, message from the Court: ‘We encourage you to involve your children in divorce proceedings, to their detriment, and to alienate them against their father. If you do so, we guarantee that you will get sole custody, even if we have to sack a sitting Judicial Officer for acting in the best interests of your children.’
Just keep one point in mind here..the federal Magistrates Court has tried to sack a Magistrate who did nothing worse than act according to the law, and in the best interests of the children. If this is not an indication that the institutions of the Family Law Courts are infected by an ideology rather then dispensing the law as intended in the Act, then God knows what is.
=======
A SYDNEY mother has received a written apology from the chief of the Federal Magistrates Court after her three children were removed from her care for refusing to visit their father.
In a letter of a type rarely seen in Australia, Chief Federal Magistrate John H. Pascoe said he was “very deeply concerned” at the distress the mother suffered after her children were taken from her.
He said the treatment the mother received in court was “quite inconsistent with the aims of the court in dealing with family matters” and added: “I have a great deal of sympathy for you.”
The woman, who cannot be named, was accused in court of “poisoning” the children against their father by involving them in the custody dispute. The children were twin boys aged 14 and their 12-year-old sister.
The magistrate in the case, Joseph Harman, told the woman he believed she was doing irreparable psychological harm to the children by not encouraging them to see their father.
In a hearing at the Parramatta branch of the Federal Magistrates Court, Mr Harman said the children would have no relationship with their father if they were allowed to stay with their mother. He based his ruling on the findings of a court psychologist.
Under the laws on shared parenting brought in by the Howard government in 2006, couples were encouraged to “co-parent” their children after divorce.
The Senate passed amendments to those laws last week. Men’s rights groups have complained the Labor government is winding back shared care, but women’s groups say the amendments are necessary to protect children from harm.
When Mr Harman told the Sydney mother he had decided to send the children to live full-time with their father, her lawyer immediately objected, saying the “extraordinary” move “would remove the children from the mother, instantly, with no communication whatsoever”.
Mr Harman replied: “That’s a bit like what happened in June-July last year, when the children were removed from any time with their father, and haven’t communicated with him since.”
Counsel for the mother told the court the children had become hysterical when told of the order, and were refusing to leave the court with their father.
The magistrate said this was typical of children who had been taught to fear their father.
The mother left the court “distressed and about to vomit” and an ambulance was called. Two NSW police officers attended the court after the children began damaging court property in the foyer.
The mother’s lawyer then told the court that if the children were forced to go with their father they would run away.
“That’s why I’ve invited the Department (of Community Services) to intervene,” Mr Harman said. “If they don’t comply, they will be in a refuge. They won’t be going home with mum.”
Two senior child welfare officers from the NSW Department of Community Services were called to the court. Mr Harman told them: “We have two children, sorry, three children, two of whom are twin boys who have just turned 14, so young, strong and full of testosterone, and a 12-year-old girl.
“They are now expressing very strong entrenched views that they are not going anywhere with their father. I have just made an order that they are to go home with him.
“I have also made an order, subject to the power of arrest if anyone breaches it, that neither mum nor any member of her family are to go and talk to them.
“If these children refuse to go anywhere with their father, I would like you to exercise your emergency powers and take them into care.
“Those are the three options: they go home with dad or they go home with the director. They are not leaving this building with mum.”
He added: “If you need the assistance of police or security, downstairs will help with that.”
However, neither police nor the social workers were willing to physically force the children, who were described as “verging on hysterical”, into a refuge or into their father’s care.
One of the police officers told Mr Harman the children were in “a highly aggressive, agitated and hysterical state” and one social worker tried to explain it would be impossible to force the children to go with the father, since it may “see them break away, or run away, and be vulnerable on the streets”.
Mr Harman conceded defeat, saying: “These children have now been present in this court since 11.30am, and accordingly have been here for the best part of eight hours and have maintained a steadfast refusal to leave (the court) with the father.”
He said the children’s mother had helped whip “them into a frenzy” about being sent to a refuge, and so he agreed to let the children leave with a maternal aunt. Their mother was banned from any contact with them for a month, including by mobile telephone and email. She was also banned from going within 500m of their school.
The mother has told The Australian the order removing the children was overturned after a month, with no explanation.
“They came back to me, and they are still with me, and I never heard another word from the court until I suddenly got that apology (on November 9),” the mother said. “He did so much damage to my children, I believe he should be sacked.”
Mr Harman was asked to stand down from the court last month while he received counselling for a series of judgments that had to be overturned on appeal.
In one case, he revealed he had a sexual relationship with the lawyer who was acting for the wife, and then refused to disqualify himself from the hearing.
Mr Pascoe said he had been made aware of “some complaints” against Mr Harman, who had “agreed to be restricted to non-sitting duties”.
Mr Harman has since resumed hearing cases at Parramatta “on a limited basis” and is subject to continuing review of his performance.
He did not respond to a request for an interview.
Mr Harman was appointed by federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland in July last year. In a statement, Mr McClelland said he was “aware of concerns raised in relation to Federal Magistrate Harman in the performance of his judicial duties”.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, magistrates “must not be removed from office, except by the Governor-General, on an address from both Houses of Parliament . . . praying for his or her removal on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”.
by Carolyn Overington

How will my children survive Obsesive Parental Alienation?

Harmonie & Jasper suffer daily under Severe Parental Alienation – What is this?

http://www.videojug.com/interview/parental-alienation
How can they survive such an obsesive brainwashing of unjustified hatred ?

Parental Alienation Is Emotional Abuse of Children

Parental Alienation Is Emotional Abuse of Children . Children Should not be forced to choose one parent over the other Published on June 28, 2011 by Amy J.L Baker Ph.D  Parental alienation is a set of strategies that parents use to undermine and interfere with a child's relationship with his or her other parent. This often but not always happens when parents are engaged in a contested custody battle. There is no one definitive set of behaviours that constitute parental alienation but research with both parents and children has revealed a core set of alienation strategies, including bad-mouthing the other parent, limiting contact with that parent, erasing the other parent from the life and mind of the child (forbidding discussion and pictures of the other parent), forcing the child to reject the other parent, creating the impression that the other parent is dangerous, forcing the child to choose, and belittling and limiting contact with the extended family of the targeted parent.
Parents who try to alienate their child from his or her other parent convey a three-part message to the child: (1) I am the only parent who loves you and you need me to feel good about yourself, (2) the other parent is dangerous and unavailable, and (3) pursuing a relationship with that parent jeopardizes your relationship with me. In essence the child receives the message that s/he is worthless and unloved and only of value for meeting the needs of others. This is the core experience of psychological maltreatment (emotional abuse) as defined by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC).

[Image]Research with "adult children" of parental alienation syndrome (that is, adults who believe that when they were children one parent turned them against the other parent) confirms that being exposed to parental alienation represents a form of emotional abuse. Furthermore, these adults reported that when they succumbed to the pressure and rejected one parent to please the other, the experience was associated with several negative long-term effects including depression, drug abuse, divorce, low self-esteem, problems with trusting, and alienation from their own children when they became parents themselves. In this way the cycle of parental alienation was carried forward through the generations. Thus, parental alienation is a form of emotional abuse that damages the child's self esteem in the short run and is associated with life-long damage.
As is often true with other forms of abuse, the child victims of parental alienation are not aware that they are being mistreated and often cling vehemently to the favoured parent, even when that parent's behaviour is harmful to them. This is why, mental health and legal professionals involved in cases of parental alienation need to look closely at the family dynamics and determine what the cause of the child's preferences for one parent and rejection of the other parent are. If the favoured parent is found to be instigating the alignment and the rejected parent is found to be a potential positive and non abusive influence, then the child's preferences should not be strictly heeded. The truth is, despite strongly held positions of alignment, inside many alienated children want nothing more than to be given permission and freedom to love and be loved by both parents.

Finding The Father -by Robert Bly

Finding the Father - by Robert Bly

My friend, this body offers to carry us for nothing -as the ocean carries logs
So on some days the body wailswith its great energy;
it smashes up the boulders, lifting small crabs that flow around the sides

Someone knocks on the door. We do not have time to dress. He wants us to go with him through the blowing and rainy streets, to the dark house.

We will go there, the body says, and there find the father whom we have never met, who wandered out in a snowstorm the night we were born, and who then lost his memory, and has lived since longing for his child, whom he saw only once

. .while he worked as a shoemaker, as a cattle herder in Australia, as a restaurant cook who painted at night.

When you light the lamp you will see him.

He sits there behind the door
the eybrows so heavy, the forehead so light
lonely in his whole body, waiting for you

A Word to Mothers: You can lose your children to parental alienation

A mother's day warning

Published on May 7, 2011 by Amy J.L. Baker, Ph.D. in Caught Between Parents

As mother's day approaches I want to take a moment to unequivocally state that yes mothers even good mothers can lose their children to parental alienation. One common myth that seems to be "out there" in the world is that parental alienation is something that only happens to fathers and that mothers, because they tend to have residential custody and because (the theory goes) the courts are biased against fathers, rarely lose their kids this way. While no one has data about the exact gender break down, I can say that without a doubt some mothers do and have been victimized in this way. I believe that part of why this is not talked about as much as fathers' experiences of parental alienation is that mothers who do lose their kids this way are overcome with shame and humiliation and tend to not want to go public with their story. In my conversations with targeted mothers a common theme is that they perceive other people as thinking that they must have done something wrong for their child to reject them. Many stay silent for this reason, to avoid being blamed and shamed. Another complicating factor is that many women's rights group denounce the existence of parental alienation, claiming that it is a fabricated problem designed to hurt mothers. Thus, women seeking support and guidance from these groups may be given the message that they are mistaken and/or must stay silent. It is time for targeted mothers to go public and be open about their experience, and make it clear that it is possible to be both a feminist and a victim of parental alienation. I strongly believe that the more people talk about this problem, the more likely it is that it can be prevented and treated. Too often custody cases get bogged down in whether the problem is real rather than focusing on how to resolve the alienation and help heal parent child relationships. In my experience an alienating parent needs three things: (1) motive to undermine the child's relationship with the other parent, (2) access to the child, and (3) skillful use of alienation strategies. These are not the sole purview of either gender.

irishtimes.com - Last Updated: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 11:37

Children 'used as pawns' in disputes

The Manchester-based firm Pannone says that the majority of complaints are made by parents worried about being replaced in their children's affections.

Separated parents are using their children as pawns in disputes over new partners during the summer holidays, according to family lawyers.

One of the UK’s leading family law firms claims that up to three quarters of disputes over residence or contact with children are the result of rows about former partners’ new relationships.
The Manchester-based firm Pannone says that the majority of complaints are made by parents worried about being replaced in their children’s affections.
Cara Nuttall, an associate at Pannone, said: “Spending time with parents during the summer holidays increases the likelihood of children meeting their mother or father’s new partner and, therefore, the potential for problems.
“These situations are so emotive that parents sometimes don’t act or think in a rational manner.”
Pannone also believes that up to 30 per cent of complaints about residence or contact with children are in fact attempts to stop former partners making a fresh start.
Ms Nuttall said: “In our experience and that of colleagues across the country, the problem often lies more with the parents than the children involved.
“Even though it may be difficult to do, parents need to focus on a child’s best interests.”

Women's convictions for domestic violence 'double'

Reprinted courtesy of

By Hayley Cavill and Rachel Fursman BBC Radio 5 live

 

The number of women convicted of domestic violence in England and Wales has more than doubled in the past five years, an investigation by BBC Radio 5 live Breakfast has found.

Figures obtained from the Crown Prosecution Service showed that almost 4,000 women were successfully prosecuted in the past year, compared with 1,500 women in 2005, a 169% increase.
Some experts say it is a worrying sign of the growing culture of violence among women, while others believe that men are now more likely to report that they have been beaten up by their wives and girlfriends than in previous years.
Chief Constable Carmel Napier, the Association of Chief Police Officers' lead on domestic abuse, says the figures show there is wider reporting of domestic abuse.
"We know about more cases now because of better responses from police, multi-agencies and the voluntary sector and a shift in the societal view of the crime," she says.

But after finally calling the police, he could not bring himself to press charges.

He had to sleep for months lying in the same position, on his back. If he turned his back his wife would punch and kick him.
Peter says the first incident of violence took him completely by surprise.
"I wasn't expecting the punch on the face. I wasn't expecting somebody hitting me so fast.
"You know when you love someone so much and you just believe they can just change? I was hoping she would change," he says.
Kieron was stabbed in the chest by his ex-wife. She is now serving a four-and-a-half year prison sentence.
He says the abuse started during her pregnancy.
The night he was stabbed, Kieron's wife came home from a friend's house demanding he cook her something to eat.
They got into an argument and she threatened to punch him, but when he pushed her away she went into the kitchen and grabbed a steak knife and plunged it into Kieron's chest.
"I could see the blood coming through the T-shirt.
"All the time I was on the phone to the ambulance I was in and out of consciousness.
"All I remember is that the ambulance people were there giving me oxygen and pain relief. The doctors gave me a 50-50 chance whether I was going to live or die," he says.
'Decades behind'
It is unclear why the conviction rates for women committing domestic violence are increasing, but organisations that offer help to male victims are sparse.
One charity that does is Mankind, which says there are just over 70 bed spaces in 20 refuges or safe houses for male victims in the UK, compared with 7,500 for women.
Mankind's chairman, Mark Brooks, believes that despite the number of women being convicted, some organisations still fail to recognise that men can be victims of domestic abuse too.
"There are a number of national and local helplines. There are some councils and police forces that do a great job in encouraging and supporting men when they come forward, but it's far too few," says Mark.
He believes that services are around three decades behind those available to female victims.
"Really in this day and age that is not acceptable," he says.
The Crown Prosecution Service says any form of domestic violence is a serious crime irrespective of whether the victim is male or female - and that there is no bias or lack of concern when dealing with cases of male victims.
Men, though, remain by far the main offenders, with the numbers convicted increasing from more than 28,000 in 2005 to just over 55,000 in 2010.

49% of women lie in Court for an AVO

by Prof. Patrick Parkinson, University of Sydney
Submission to Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2011 

There is now a very widespread view in the community that some family violence orders are sought for tactical or collateral reasons to do with family law disputes. People have bcome very cynical about them. A national survey conducted in 2009, with over 12,500 respondents, found that 49% of respondents agreed with the proposition that ‘women going through custody battles often make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence in order to improve their case’, and only 28% disagreed. While it might be expected that men would be inclined to believe this, 42% of women did so as well.
The view that some family violence order applications are unjustified appears to be shared by state magistrates in New South Wales and Queensland. Hickey and Cumines in a survey of 68 NSW magistrates concerning apprehended violence orders (AVOs) found that 90% agreed that some AVOs were sought as a tactic to aid their case in order to deprive a former partner of contact with the children. About a third of those who thought AVOs were used tactically indicated that it did not occur ‘often’, but one in six believed it occurred ‘all the time’. A similar survey of 38 Queensland magistrates found that 74% agreed with the proposition that protection orders are used in Family Court proceedings as a tactic to aid a parent’s case and to deprive their partner of contact with their children.

90% of surveyed NSW Magistrates agreed that AVOs were sometimes or often sought as a tactic in order to deprive a former partner of contact with the children.

In research that our research team recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, almost all solicitors thought that tactical applications for AVOs occurred, with the majority considering it happened often. In another study based upon interviews with 181 parents who have been involved in family law disputes, we found a strong perception from respondents to family violence orders (both women and men) that their former partners sought a family violence order in order to help win their family law case. This is a quote from one of the women in our study. Her former husband, who we also interviewed, sought an apprehended violence order (AVO) to keep her away from the house after she had left it.

A survey of 38 Queensland magistrates found that 74% agreed with the proposition that protection orders are used in Family Court proceedings as a tactic to aid a parent’s case and to deprive their partner of contact with their children.

She said this:
“I thought this is ridiculous. What’s he giving me an AVO for? I haven’t done anything to him. I haven’t hit him, kicked him. We never had any violence in our marriage. Why have I got an AVO?  … you can put an AVO on someone and say that they’re violent, and the only way you can get a child off their mother is because they’re violent. And that’s why I think he gave me the AVO.”
The belief that family violence orders are a weapon in the war between parents is fuelled by the fact that judges are required under the Family Law Act to consider such family violence orders in determining the best interests of the child. The proposed clause in this Bill takes the law back to what it was before 2006, without any explanation for why Parliament should reverse its previous decision at least to limit the provision. It really doesn’t matter whether this belief that family violence orders are used tactically is true or not. The fact is that the perception is out there and it is held by state magistrates and family lawyers, as well as the wider community.
The retention of this provision in the Family Law Act simply fuels the suspicion that family violence orders are being misused.
This is damaging to the credibility of the family violence order system and the courts.The second reason why the requirement to consider family violence orders ought to be removed is that this serves absolutely no purpose. Yes, the court needs to know about the existence of a current family violence order in order to consider how to frame its own orders (s.60CG), but that is dealt with by requiring people to inform the court of such orders (s.60CF). Why consider them again in deciding what is in the best interests of a child (s.60CC(3))? The court is already required to consider the history of violence. What does it add to require the court also to consider a family violence order? The impression given by the legislation is that these orders are somehow evidence that there has been violence. However, that is a misunderstanding.

In research that our research team recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, almost all solicitors thought that tactical applications for AVOs occurred, with the majority considering it happened often.

Family violence orders have absolutely no evidential value in the vast majority of cases. This is because, in the vast majority of cases, they are consented to without admissions. The hearings in these uncontested cases are very brief indeed. Prof. Rosemary Hunter, in observations in Victoria in 1996–97, found that the median hearing time for each application was only about three minutes. Applications were typically dealt with in a bureaucratic manner, with magistrates being distant and emotionally disengaged. To the extent that applicants were asked to give oral evidence, they were typically asked to confirm the content of their written application, and very little exploration of the grounds for the application took place.
Dr Jane Wangmann, in a recent analysis of court files in NSW, reached finding very similar to Hunter’s. In her observations of AVO matters in 2006–7, she found, like Hunter, that cases were dealt with in three minutes or less. She also noted that the information provided in written complaints was brief and sometimes vague. It is hardly surprising, then, that judges in family law cases draw no inferences from the mere existence of a family violence order. This has been the clear view of family lawyers for the last 15 years.
Indeed, in the research we recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, none of the lawyers who responded to the question believed that judicial officers gave AVOs much consideration in determining parenting disputes. Judges, they indicate, want to evaluate the evidence of violence itself, not the fact that another court has made an order about it by consent and without admissions.

At Last!!! -Australianl MP George Christensen Speaks up Against Family Court Bullshit

George Christensen speaks in federal Parliament against this malicious piece of legislation): In addressing the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, I have come to understand how the citizens of Troy must have felt when they were greeted with the gift of a giant wooden horse, because this bill is not what it appears. It is a Trojan horse. Just like the giant wooden horse, full of Greek warriors, in Greek legend and like an insidious computer virus, full of malicious code, this Trojan bill is loaded with consequences that will undermine some of the most basic human rights for both parents and children, and particularly fathers.

Send a message of support and appreciation to Nationals MP, Mr George Christensen
Family law is a very difficult area to legislate. There is no escaping the fact that every family is different. To create legislation that caters to all circumstances is an unlikely quest. In most circumstances, there are no winners in family law. Family breakdowns are messy. They are hurtful. They are spiteful. They are emotional, irrational and painful. The holy grail of relationship breakdowns, the amicable divorce, is rarer than a kept Labor promise.
It is in this emotionally charged atmosphere that mothers and fathers interact and children are bystanders, often witnessing behaviour by their parents at their very worst. Make no mistake: I do not object to the face-value intentions of some of the amendments in this bill. We cannot question the need to hold a child’s safety in the highest regard when it comes to custody arrangements. But we can question why these amendments are being made.
The current act, introduced by the Howard government in 2006, created the ‘twin pillars’ of parenting provisions. These measures recognised two primary considerations for determining the best interests of the child. The twin pillars were: (a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of his or her parents and (b) the need to protect the child from harm or from being exposed to abuse, neglect and/or violence—I repeat: the need to protect the child from harm.
Safety concerns for the child are already in the existing legislation. It is one of two primary considerations—considerations that, yes, are given equal weight. But, in addition, the current act specifically states in section 60CG that a court must ensure that a parenting order:
(a) Is consistent with any family violence order; and
(b) Does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
Protection is already provided for in the act.
What this amendment proposes to do is to take a George Orwell approach to ranking considerations. When Orwell’s animals in his classic novel Animal Farm draft their legislation on the barn wall, they affirm that ‘All animals are equal’. The pigs then make an amendment: ‘But some animals are more equal than others’. The pigs, of course, had an ulterior motive and I fear that there is one at play here as well. What these amendments are saying is, ‘Yes, the two considerations are primary, but one is more primary than the other.’ What the bill does in reality is to retain child safety as a primary concern while relegating the child’s parental relationships to a minor concern. It sounds innocent enough, I suppose, but the Trojan horse here is a facade of enhancing child safety. The bill is dressed up as an attempt to protect children, which is a pointless exercise, because child safety is fully ensured in the current act.

..but the Trojan horse here is a facade of enhancing child safety. The bill is dressed up as an attempt to protect children, which is a pointless exercise, because child safety is fully ensured in the current act.

What is inside this Trojan horse, the malicious code that will infect society, is an attempt to undermine equal access for both parents. This change would invite the court to ignore the requirement to consider the second pillar—the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.
The Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland is concerned about giving greater weight to the second of the primary considerations. In their submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, they said: ‘Such a provision removes the court’s licence to assess in each individual case the degree of risk, its probability or, in the case of family violence, its context in terms of frequency, intensity and recency in the determination of the weight to be given to such risk or harm.’ This bill would mean that any inference of violence, proven or unproven, would have to be taken into consideration, however vexatious the claims may be. The potential danger of this change is apparent when viewed in conjunction with other changes proposed in this bill.

This bill would mean that any inference of violence, proven or unproven, would have to be taken into consideration, however vexatious the claims may be.

The broadened definition of ‘family violence’ would mean that a wide range of everyday activities could potentially be construed as violence. The broader definition includes as violence such things as repeated derogatory taunts. Under the proposed definition, much of what happens right here in the parliament would be construed as violence. Also included as violence is this little nugget: ‘preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends, or culture.’ Under this broad definition, a parent could not prevent a young teenager from spending 20 hours a day talking to friends on Facebook, for fear of being accused of family violence.

“I suspect that there is a strong feminist ideology driving these amendments. It is feminist ideology that has created this malicious code to rob men of their rights to be fathers. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to rob children of their right to have a father in their lives. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to create the illusion of acting to stop family violence.”

What happens when a parent acts in a way that a reasonable person would describe as good parenting? What happens when a father says to his 13-year-old daughter, ‘No, you can’t go to Julia’s party because there will be alcohol and no adult supervision’? I will tell you what happens. An upset teenage daughter talks to a vindictive mother, who then claims the daughter is a victim of family violence—and it is their right under this definition. Another child loses the right to have a meaningful relationship with her parent. Under this definition, a parent would be too scared to ground a child as punishment for bad behaviour, for fear of ‘depriving a family member of his or her liberty.’
The sheer magnitude of this definition presents two problems. The most immediate problem is that living an ordinary life can too easily be construed as family violence. Adding fuel to the fire will be the actions of hurt, emotional, and spiteful former partners in stretching the truth. Tripping over the family dog will suddenly become ‘intentionally injuring an animal’. Using a few poorly-chosen words a few times in an argument—which most families have experienced—will constitute family violence as ‘repeated derogatory taunts’. This definition would allow everyday actions to be seized, twisted, exaggerated and used as family violence weapons in the court. What this change does is broaden the definition of family violence so much that the word ‘violence’ loses all real meaning. That would be a tragedy, because it would also water down the perception of family violence.
I believe that violence is violence. Violence is cruel and harmful. It is a serious problem in some families and a serious problem in the wider society. But violence is not ‘grounding’ a child. It is not protecting your child. Being a good parent is not being a violent parent. There is a simple solution to stop such things being interpreted as family violence. That is the ‘reasonable person’ test. Such a test demands that for an action to be deemed as violence it must be an action that requires a person ‘reasonably to fear’ for their personal safety and wellbeing. This is precisely the meaning and interpretation that this legislation strips out of the act.
Is this bill more than it appears at face value? Is it another Trojan horse? I say it is most certainly a Trojan horse.
On face value, the broadened definition of ‘family violence’ creates the illusion of providing greater protection against family violence. Yes, that is a lovely wooden horse but let’s take a look inside. Maybe not, because inside this Trojan is malicious code that gives one parent an arsenal of weapons to be misused in court to deprive the other parent of their right to be a parent.
Earlier in this debate we heard the Minister for the Status of Women tell this parliament that no-one uses claims of family violence in such a way. I have some very bad news for the minister: it actually does happen. It happens every day; and if she is not aware of it happening then she is gravely out of touch with reality. If the minister does not have any contact with her own constituents, perhaps she could spend a few minutes at her laptop doing some research.
Here is the sort of thing that you can find in two minutes: the newspaper headline ‘Ugly feud fought on Facebook’. The article tells about a Family Court hearing late last year. At the end it says:
She had already strung the case out by falsely claiming her ex-husband had been sexually assaulting their children after one judgment went against her. Then she falsely claimed the father’s new wife had been assaulting them. ‘The mother has over the years attempted to manipulate the court system,’ Justice Barry said.
That is just one case that can be found with two minutes of Google research, and yet the minister came into this House and said that making false allegations of family violence and using family violence as a weapon in the courts is a myth. Do some homework, Minister.
The fact that this minister has told a lie to this parliament—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke): The member will withdraw.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I will withdraw, but I will say that the minister has told an untruth to this parliament. It is clearly not true to say that it is a myth. It is clearly not true to say—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will return to the bill before him.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I am, because the minister has told this House that it is a myth that family violence is misused by people in the Family Court. The fact is that it is not a myth and you can see that from a bit of research. Abuse of the system is why we have organisations like Lone Fathers , Dads on the Air , Fathers Online, Fathers 4 Equality, Men’s Rights and so on.
If we look closely at these groups, there is a common theme. It is a theme that helps explain why this malicious code is being pushed into the act. These are groups set up by fathers. We can talk all we want about custodial parents and non-custodial parents, but
the truth is that most custodial parents are mothers and most non-custodial parents are fathers.

Abuse of the system is why we have organisations like Lone Fathers , Dads on the Air , Fathers Online, Fathers 4 Equality, Men’s Rights and so on.

There are no winners in family law. All parents in family law become losers one way or the other, but some who are bigger losers than others. The current act helped to bring some equality to family law. It created the two pillars, one of which recognised the benefits to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. These amendments are a backward step. They will strip fathers of their right to be fathers. These amendments will allow abuse of the system that will create another generation of stolen children.
I do not know where the government obtains feedback on the practicalities of family law and family law disputes, but I get my feedback from constituents. I talk to real people who are affected by real situations. I have conversations with fathers who are getting the roughest end of the pineapple. They are grieving fathers who have lost children through the courts. They are devastated and frustrated. They are good men who love their children and want to maintain a relationship with their own flesh and blood—something that should be a basic right.
Some of these men are on the edge. They are driven insane by the lack of justice in the system. They are left in the wilderness, robbed of basic rights and family and, with no support from our legal system, these fathers are driven to despair, driven to the brink of insanity. And if the minister wants to continue her research, she might discover what happens when fathers are placed in a hopeless situation where justice is lost through abuse of the system—which she claims is a myth.
When fathers are driven to insanity, they do insane things. I can, in no way, condone the actions of men who, in the face of losing everything, choose to take everything. They do take their own lives and, very sadly, sometimes in the insanity that they are engulfed in, they take the lives of their children. I note that this is not purely a male response, given that there are numerous examples, including some recent cases, of non-custodial mothers doing the same thing.

Some of these men are on the edge. They are driven insane by the lack of justice in the system. They are left in the wilderness, robbed of basic rights and family…

Family violence is a terrible thing, but so are the actions of fathers driven to the brink. These amendments will do nothing to stop family violence—we already have good measures in place—but they will drive more fathers to the brink. If these amendments drive fathers to the brink, we should be asking who is at the wheel. Is the Minister for the Status of Women at the wheel? Is the Labor-Greens government at the wheel?
I suspect that there is a strong feminist ideology driving these amendments. It is feminist ideology that has created this malicious code to rob men of their rights to be fathers. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to rob children of their right to have a father in their lives. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to create the illusion of acting to stop family violence.
I note that included with these changes is one that repeals the ‘friendly parent’ provisions from the additional considerations for determining a parenting order. The friendly parent provision encourages amicable behaviour among parents. It fosters friendly relationships with all parties. Most importantly, the friendly parent provision assists a court to meet the first pillar of parenting provisions—the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of its parents. This provision has helped more fathers maintain meaningful relationships with their children and, at the same time, it has discouraged parents from abusing the system.
But justice and maintenance of rights for fathers is an affront to this feminist ideology from this government. What a clever way to rob men and rob fathers of their rights! Surely no-one would vote against amendments aimed at protecting children and preventing family violence. But that is not what these amendments are really about. There is already protection in the current act. The fact is that these amendments actually trivialise what is a very serious matter—that being family violence. The broadened definition of ‘family violence’ waters down the meaning of violence and will, in effect, make family violence more acceptable—precisely the opposite of the purported aim of these amendments.

These amendments should be seen for what they are. They are a Trojan horse, full of malicious code designed to deprive fathers of their rights. The best thing we can do to protect the safety of children and to prevent family violence is to leave this act as it is

The Cruelty of women who use children as weapons in divorce

The cruelty of women who use children as weapons in divorce

Posted by HARRIET SERGEANT on September 22nd, 2010 | Category:  Commentary  Exploitation of Family Law 

About ten years ago, I was standing in my son's junior school classroom. The teacher had stuck up on the wall the best essays on the topic: 'How I Spent Last Weekend.' One caught my attention. 

Not for this little boy a visit to the zoo or the excitement of a football game. Instead, he had chronicled a weekend's battle between his divorcing parents.

'Mum calls dad names on the phone,' he had written in his laborious handwriting. 'We had cake for tea. My sister and I cry.' The teacher caught my eye. She had put up that story on purpose. 

'I want the parents to see what divorce they are doing to their children. They should be ashamed of themselves,' she said. 

My son recently bumped into that little boy. A decade on, he is 18, has dropped out of school and is on drugs. 

Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division of the High Court, agrees that something has to be done. He has accused separating couples, especially those from the middle classes, of using their children as 'both the battlefield and the ammunition' to try to score points in their personal disputes. 

'There is nothing worse, for most children, than for their parents to denigrate each other,' said the country's most senior family court judge. 'The child's sense of self-worth can be irredeemably damaged.' 

Six years ago, my husband and I divorced. It came as a great shock. But we were all too aware our children were just becoming adolescents - and that adolescence is perilous enough without warring parents. 

We tried, not always successfully on my part, never to criticise each other in front of the children. Very occasionally, I even managed to emphasise his good points (of which there are many) - it was quite hard when at the time all I wanted to do was murder him. 

A female friend was shocked. 'Why aren't you using the children against him?' she asked. 'I would.' 

Her reaction is not unusual. The battlefields Sir Nicholas Wall describes are too often of the wife's choosing. This is because most divorces are initiated by women due to their husband's infidelity, as the fatherhood research body Fathers Direct points out.

These women are hurt and they want to get their own back through the children, money or both. They are determined the husband is as much divorced from his children as his wife. 

One wealthy man I know finds himself, despite his riches, at the beck and call of his former wife. 

'How can my wife hurt me? How could she bring me to my knees?' he asks. 'Through my children.' 

The strategy is very successful. This otherwise powerful man submits to every capricious demand.

'With just two hours' notice, I had to cancel an important meeting and take them to the dentist,' he said. If he refused, his wife said, he would not see them for a month. 

An advertising director found himself equally powerless when his wife suddenly moved from London to the Midlands with their two sons.

'She did not tell me. One day she just stopped answering the phone. Until then I had been seeing my sons every weekend,' he says. 

By the time the case reached court, the sons were settled in a new school. The judge admitted that what the woman had done was illegal, but because it was in the best interests of the children to be with their mother, he did nothing. 

'She had got away with effectively kidnapping my children,' said the father. His relationship with his sons has all but broken down. Their new home is too far for them to come to London. When he goes to see them, he has to stay in a hotel.

'The children get bored in an hour or two,' he says. 'They have their friends and their sports, which they would rather do instead.' 

He tells me he finds the situation 'so goddamn painful. I try to play the role of a father - but how can I when I have been deliberately moved to the periphery of their lives?' 

The situation leaves many men I have interviewed distraught. They describe the loss of their children as 'an emotional amputation' or 'a living bereavement'. 

It is no wonder that within two years of divorce, half of fathers lose contact with their children.

As one man said sadly, divorce 'leaves many fathers on the edge of a bloody great abyss. Many fall off and are never seen again'.

Douglas Alexiou, one of London's pre-eminent family lawyers, agrees that the wife holds all the cards in a divorce case. 

'Court order after court order is served. The wife claims the children are ill or just do not want to see their father,' he says.

'There is very little a court can do if a mother has poisoned the minds of her children against the father. There is no sanction against the mother apart from a jail term - and no court will do that. 

'Perhaps one day a judge will be bold enough to jail a mother and finally set an example.'  

In all this there is only one real victim - the children. If one of those wives was handed an axe and ordered to hack off a limb of her child, she would be appalled. Yet so many women are happy, even gleeful, to commit the equivalent emotional amputation on their children by depriving them of their father. 

U.S. author Kathleen Parker in her excellent book Save The Males points out that in depriving a child of their father, 'we reduce a child's chance of a successful and happy life. 

'Growing up without a father is the most reliable indicator of poverty and all the familiar social pathologies affecting children, including drug abuse, truancy, delinquency and sexual promiscuity.'

But this misery is not only the fault of the parents. The family court system is adversarial and encourages couples to fight, says Nadine O'Connor, campaign manager at the lobby group Fathers4Justice. 

And change, she says, will be a long time in coming - until lawyers stop making their own killing from warring parents, children will continue to be used as weapons.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1314131/The-cruelty-women-use-children-weapons-divorce.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz10G1CK5QF

How can a parent do this to a child ? by parentalalienation.com.au

I see many of you asking this question over and over and I wish there was some simple answer that would make it all go away. I guess I could give some plausible explanations, not that these will make any difference. So here go some scenarios that could be by themselves issues or combined together to make these alienators who they are and why they do what they do.

1. The alienator is so filled with anger, rage and hatred that they cannot see any further past that and their whole entire world is rapped around making sure the other person hurts as much as they do. It is like they are blinded by their anger and hatred.
2. They were raised in a home where one of their parents was an alienator and it is the only thing they know about relationships, that is one person controls everyone and if you do not have control, then you are nothing. So they would not know how to have a relationship any other way nor would they know how to handle it any other way when they loose control over everyone, because to not be in total control means that you are a looser.
3. The alienator could have such low self-esteem that anyone putting them down or any inference that anything they were involved in was a failure, such as their marriage, would set them off, fighting to defend their honour and reputation. They are so protective of their image, that they will do anything to make sure that they stay looking like the perfect person and destroy everyone else around them to maintain that image.
4. The alienators own parents put them down constantly and told them they would never amount to much and when their own marriage fails, they are desperate to prove their parents were wrong and will do anything to make it look like it was not their fault.
5. The alienator's have warped views of themselves from low self- esteem issues. It puts them in such a fragile state of fear that they are no good unless they are seen as all good.
6. The alienator cannot accept responsibility for their actions and blame them on everyone else because how could they possibly be wrong. Everyone else is wrong.
7. The alienator is so narcissistic in their beliefs that they are never wrong, to protect that image, they must make sure that they are always on top and that it is everyone's problem or fault.
8. The alienator was never taught to take responsibility for their own actions and to be humble when they have made a mistake. They were raised that they could do no wrong, just like their own parent/s could do not wrong and thus it is everyone else who is wrong and so Instead they were raised to blame everyone else for their mistakes.
9. The alienator is so terrified of loosing their children that they have to paint this perfect picture of themselves and make the other person look so bad, to ensure that they do not loose their children and control.
10. The alienator is so terrified that they are not lovable that they force others to love them.
11. The alienator is not a real good sharer. In other words, they do not know how to share love and happiness. Maybe because they had to share their parents and never got to understand that sharing is a good thing and feels really good to do.

I guess I could go on and on. But I really think it boils down to the very first one. They are so filled with hatred, rage and anger that they just cannot move on with their lives. It consumes them to the point that they will do anything to win or get revenge

No parent should be deprived of their right to parent - by Dads in Distress

The Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is the systematic denigration by one parent by the other with the intent of alienating the child against the other parent. The purpose of the alienation is usually to gain or retain custody without the involvement of the father. The alienation usually extends to the father's family and friends as well.

Dr. Richard Gardner in his book 'The Parental Alienation Syndrome' states (P.74) "Many of these children proudly state that their decision to reject their fathers is their own. They deny any contribution from their mothers. And the mothers often support this vehemently. In fact, the mothers will often state that they want the child to visit with the father and recognise the importance of such involvement, yet such a mother's every act indicates otherwise. Such children appreciate that, by stating the decision is their own, they assuage mothers guilt and protect her from criticism. Such professions of independent thinking are supported by the mother who will often praise these children for being the kind of people who have minds of their own and are forthright and brave enough to express overtly their opinions. Frequently, such mothers will exhort their children to tell them the truth regarding whether or not they really want to see their fathers. The child will usually appreciate that "the truth" is the profession that they hate the father and do not want to see him ever again. They thereby provide that answer - couched as "the truth" - which will protect them from their mother's anger if they were to state what they really wanted to do, which is to see their fathers. It is important for the reader to appreciate that after a period of programming the child may not know what is the truth any more and come to actually believe that the father deserves the vilification being directed against him. The end point of the brainwashing process has then been achieved.